Experiences of Using a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Children—A Descriptive Study with Parents in the Republic of Georgia

Abstract

The benefits of medical devices are often multifaceted and may have an important impact on patients’ and relatives’ physical, mental and/or social well-being. Diabetes is a metabolic disorder and a continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring sensor can suggest increasing treatment satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to describe parents’ experiences during their daily lives and support needs when a child uses a Flash Glucose Monitoring system (FGM). Twenty parents (n = 3 men vs. n = 17 women) to children (age ranged between 22 months and 16 years) with diabetes disease type 1, treated with an FGM unit (used for an average of 7 months (range 1–72)) at home, participated in this study. A qualitative questionnaire survey with open questions including follow-up dialogues was distributed to the parents, and collected data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Overall satisfaction with the Libre device was Md 10 (IQR 9.25–10). One main theme “Advances in technology significantly improved everyday life” emerged from 2 categories: Improvements in quality of life and Elements of challenges. In conclusion, this qualitative study determined that parents of children with DMT1 experience a great improvement in daily life when given the opportunity to use the Libre device.

Use of continuous glucose monitors in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A scoping review

“…Four studies focused only on children or adolescents, 19,35,39,40 though two of them included the parents as well. 35,40 The most common CGM devices used in the studies were from Medtronic (n = 10) and Abbott (n = 7).…”

“…Four studies focused only on children or adolescents, 19,35,39,40 though two of them included the parents as well. 35,40 The most common CGM devices used in the studies were from Medtronic (n = 10) and Abbott (n = 7). 3.3.1 | The effect of CGMs on diabetes management and outcomes In 14 reports, the primary aim was to assess the effect of CGMs on diabetes management, surrogates or health outcomes (Table S3).…”

“…Two studies reported that CGMs were easy and comfortable to wear with subsequent better glycaemia management 24,29 ; however, one of them reported some patients' concerns due to differences between SMBG measurements and CGM results, no compatibility with insulin pumps, and the lack of alarm for hypo‐ and hyper‐glycaemia events 24 . One study reported improvement in quality of life for both parents and children after children started using CGMs, and the device was considered of great help for decision‐making, especially when children did physical activity 40 . Finally, a study assessing knowledge about technology in diabetes among T1DM endocrinology fellows and attending physicians, 36 reported that 35% acquired knowledge from the institution where they had received training, 16% acquired knowledge from their patients and 30% acquired knowledge from technology company representatives.…”

“…China contributed with seven studies, [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Colombia with five, [23][24][25][26][27] India with four, [28][29][30][31] Brazil [32][33][34] and Turkey [35][36][37] with three each, and Argentina, 38 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 39 Georgia, 40 Malaysia 41 and Mexico, 42 with one study each (Table 1). Only one report was published in 2002, 32 and the number of reports per year increased steadily, reaching eight reports in 2021, [17][18][19]22,26,31,40,42 and five reports up to July 2022. 20,30,34,36,38 Overall, seven reports presented results of experimental studies (five randomized trials and two quasiexperimental [pre-post]) 16,17,19,22,27,41,…”

“…24 One study reported improvement in quality of life for both parents and children after children started using CGMs, and the device was considered of great help for decision-making, especially when children did physical activity. 40 Finally, a study assessing knowledge about technology in diabetes among T1DM endocrinology fellows and attending physicians, 36 reported that 35% acquired knowledge from the institution where they had received training, 16% acquired knowledge from their patients and 30% acquired knowledge from technology company representatives. Moreover, 33% of the fellows and attending physicians thought their knowledge was adequate.…”